In the mid-nineties I plead guilty and was handed down a Federal sentence of over 14 years for a first-offense, non-violent drug crime. For the same crime, if I had been prosecuted under the state system, I would have received a sentence of no more then eighteen months and quite possibly only probation. The discrepancy arises because under federal as opposed to under state law, a minor actor in a conspiracy can be given the same sentence as the conspiracy's king-pin. The prosecution decides on the basis of how much help the defendant is willing or able to offer. (False testimony counts as long as the prosecution team can make it stick.If they can't, they still hand out reduction points for trying.)
These are the circumstances under which I was offered a sentence of three and a half years--an offer I chose not to accept. And It is sentencing contortions like these that are fueling much of the too-long, too-short sentence controversy.
Now mind you, I'm not complaining--For one thing I was guilty; beyond that, I received the psychic benefits of staying true to myself. I'm just pointing out the waste. I would have gone back to a straight life even if I had received no time at all-- supervision and community service. And I'm as convinced as I can be that the same was true for a lot of my fellow inmates. It's something a judge, had he been allowed the power, could have more ably sorted out.
In the end, the long sentences probably didn't irrevocably harm the majority of us. Most of us, after we acclimated, remained relatively happy and made relatively good personal use of our time. But do you taxpayers out there really want spend some forty thousand a year-- EACH-- on thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, like me? My advice would be, use the money to send a kid or two to college.

Why is it that when judges have discretion to change sentences, they always go to the low side? There is a reason why mandatory minimum sentences were made law - judges refused to use the discretion they had properly, and always chose to cut sentences. When every sentences is "below average," you know there's a problem. Mandatory minimums are not extra-long sentences, they just prevent judges from giving extra-short sentences.

And if mandatory minimum sentences were really so onerous, fewer criminals would commit crimes. They don't, so obviously they're not.

Giving judges more discretion over sentences would be a good idea, but keep in mind that they have a limited scope on the situation, with police officers (preventing crime and capturing perpetrators), lawyers (a one-sided, but more direct view on the individual), prison employees (first-hand perspective over incarceration), the public (victims, family, etc.) and politicians (deciding on the laws) largely completing the picture.

Still, I feel that larger reforms are needed to really enact change. I have proposed one approach based on the premise that criminals shouldn’t be released back into the public until they’ve reformed their ways and are ready to lead productive lives. I don't know if it's the solution, but it is an idea to start the conversation.

And the alternative to limiting judges discretion is having to put up with the likes of 60 day sentences for child rapists, because the judge has "stopped believing in punishment", or because

"the perpetrator is too young; the perpetrator is too old; the perpetrator has been rehabilitated; the perpetrator will not be rehabilitated in prison; similarly situated perpetrators got a different sentence; the perpetrator wrote a children's book; the perpetrator was making a statement about the society; perpetrator says he didn't do it (and we're too busy writing him mash notes to look at the evidence); the perpetrator was on cold medication when he raped, murdered, and cannibalized a family of four."

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws are there for and because of what the liberal society produces. If more regulation is good for the banksters, it should be good for the judges too!!! :)

The idea that judges are best positioned to reduce the number of individuals entering the prison system seems logical and should be quite marketable. Perhaps it hasn't been marketed effectively thus far.

But isn't it ultimately the task of the judge to explain the details of each accusation to the jury? Should judges perhaps instruct the jury also on what the alternative (stronger and weaker) accusations might have been?

12 Angry Men taught generations of jurors that evidence must be categorical. It seems a supplementary manual describing how to distinguish between crimes of different magnitudes is needed, in particular one directed at an equally wide audience.